They lowered the value for acceptable range against a lot of the Environmental Scientist recommendation

hmm So do you think this was done because they didn't think it would be done enough unless they exaggerated it?
Like they feel like the companies would lie about how low they actually went, or that the epa just wants things the way THEY want regardless of the
science?

"Gulf Stream is slowing down faster than ever, scientists say.
Scientists believe that huge volumes of freshwater flowing into the North Atlantic from the rapidly melting icecap of Greenland have slowed down the
ocean 'engine' that drives the Gulf Stream to the Caribbean towards North-West Europe, bringing heat equivalent to the output of a million power
stations."

Good point. There are several reasons. The one big one is the volcano's on Greenland melting under the glacier and creating a cold water surge that is
pushing back the Gulf stream. If it happens to slow it down much more, we may still get to know what snow is (just like Al Gore warned kids would no
longer see), then we might keep going to ice covering great stretches of land again and failed food crops.

They lowered the value for acceptable range against a lot of the Environmental Scientist recommendation

hmm So do you think this was done because they didn't think it would be done enough unless they exaggerated it?
Like they feel like the companies would lie about how low they actually went, or that the epa just wants things the way THEY want regardless of the
science?

I don't hate true brit, I do hope to wake him up to the truth. I call a spade a spade. He has been a fringe nutcase that I can rarely agree on his
stances and that should be properly challenged, IMO.

Environmental Scientist, I collect ambient air pollution data, to include Ozone, Sulfur Dioxide, Lead and Acid rain deposition. I analyze the
collected data and quality control/assure the data is accurate and verify that the field operators challenges to the instruments are within
'confidence limits' (that confidence is what I keep pointing to in my posts against AGW)
ETA

We also keep up with the temperatures for the monitors and are using instruments that require a 20-30 C range to operate. We have to monitor ambient
outside temperature were we collect data for heavy metals like at lead monitoring sites. This is to be able to calculate the data in actual conditions
for the most accurate sample collection and analysis.

So in your research do you have to account for the tech that has been put in place over the last say 10-20 years for cutting co2 levels such as
catalytic converters and carbon capture?

Did you read my earlier posts?

Am I way off base suggesting that the levels arn't as high as were predicted because of those technologies?

You said that the epa made the companies perform under the safe level. How much of that do you think contributed to the lower levels we are seeing?

Last question first, a hell of a lot and I am NOT for ending it. But we don't need any more is what I am saying. We need to handle each facility the
same now. Some states like what Rise reported on the WVa case of contamination of the Kenawa River being a good point. The inspectors weren't doing
their jobs properly and the EPA didn't really figure that out in time. Similar in Grand Rapids, people did NOT do their damn job. NO reason for lead
pipes there and no reason for acidifying the water without some kind of remediation. A damn shame...

The levels of pollution were designed to go down because of the tech and it is working. Looking the other way in China and India is a big problem now.

I'm speculating that Donald J. Trump and his henchmen...want to stoke the fires of global warming even higher --- come hell or high water --- so as to
cause a year round ice free condition for shipping in the Northwest Passage.

Yeah, that's the really funny part is that outsourcing the pollution to third world countries part...

Meanwhile the beliebers will tell you, oh no we did so much to stop it that's why things have changed!

When they fail to realize that we increased emissions steeply as a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY!

The beliebers have been too stupid this entire time to even ONCE listen to the people saying "hey um why does climate change policy actually increase
emissions and look a lot like very unpopular western deindustrialization policy repackaged with environmental responsibility stickers slapped over the
original labels?"

Gee imagination that, climate change legislation and the climate change agenda when you look at it real hard bears a striking resemblance to a bunch
of the "post colonialist social justice agenda" and the other fun names this crap masquerades under just repackaged again... (I call it the F*** the
middle class and kill whitey movement but I get accused of telling things too much like they actually are all the time)

This movement's basic goals have always been to "equalize things" by making grinding poverty, endemic corruption, and non functional infrastructure
the reality for formerly prosperous first wielders by directly penalizing the first world for success and handing the spoils of all this success to
nations who will squander it.

It's a hateful bigoted F***ed up movement based entirely in spite with a thin veneer of "fairness" over to and using PC / WHITE GUILT to ramrod it
down everyone in the West's throats!

When the racism card turned out not to be enough to guilt the western middle classes into allowing their own destruction out of misplaced guilt, they
added in the "environmental science" on top!

So here's the deal, AGW is happening to some degree and it is something that desperately needs addressing!

And that's exactly why I oppose the current policies which are wildly counterproductive and actively designed to hand the economic power etc to
actually do things about it to people we KNOW WILL NOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT!

originally posted by: Erno86
I'm speculating that Donald J. Trump and his henchmen...want to stoke the fires of global warming even higher --- come hell or high water --- so as to
cause a year round ice free condition for shipping in the Northwest Passage.

That would be good for all of us. People cant eat snow and ice and plants hate it.

originally posted by: Erno86
I'm speculating that Donald J. Trump and his henchmen...want to stoke the fires of global warming even higher --- come hell or high water --- so as to
cause a year round ice free condition for shipping in the Northwest Passage.

That would be good for all of us. People cant eat snow and ice and plants hate it.

Ha ha ha...

Nothing better than a mouthful of snow (in a radioactive free zone), in order to quench my thirst while shoveling it --- But I do avoid eating that
yellow snow.

Rising sea levels have to do with melting glaciers if I understand things correctly, and ever since the end of the ice age, our glaciers have been
receding and if the world works as it's supposed to, the seal levels have been rising since that event started. So it's not something that should
catch anyone by surprise, unless I'm wrong and sea level rise isn't due to glacial melt.

Don't forget the sea ice, there's more to melt away than glaciers.
However. Here's a piece on your point:

Researchers from the Universities of Bremen and Innsbruck have shown in a recent study that the further melting of glaciers cannot be
prevented in the current century—even if all emissions were curtailed. However, due to the slow reaction of glaciers to climate change, human
activity will have a massive impact beyond the 21st century. In the long run, 500 meters by car with a mid-range vehicle will cost one kilogram of
glacier ice. The study has now been published in Nature Climate Change.

In the Paris Agreement, 195 member states of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change agreed to limit the rise in global average
temperature to significantly below 2°C, if possible to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. This should significantly reduce the risks of climate
change. What would the success of this plan mean for the evolution of glaciers? This is the conclusion of climate researchers Ben Marzeion and Nicolas
Champollion from the Institute of Geography at the University of Bremen and Georg Kaser and Fabien Maussion from the Institute of Atmospheric and
Cryospheric Sciences at the University of Innsbruck. They have investigated this question by calculating the effects of compliance with these climate
goals on the progressive melting of glaciers. "Melting glaciers have a huge influence on the development of sea level rise. In our calculations, we
took into account all glaciers worldwide—without the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets and peripheral glaciers—and modeled them in various
climate scenarios," explains Georg Kaser.

Science has been compromised for decades, and it's becoming a total farce.

Science said 110 story highrises really DO pulverize into microscopic dust particles, in 20 seconds, because it happened twice on the same day, with
two aluminum-sheet metal planes! No evidence needed, when 'expert scientists' know exactly how everything happened! And since we are not 'experts',
like they are, we just 'don't know' what they know!

All our 'experts' now make 'cartoon physics' act as real physics!! That takes real talent, and the government only hires the vert best talent out
there!

When they say the planet is getting hotter, it is really the opposite. So 'global warming' became 'climate change'. That covers their ass on
everything, like snow in deserts, for the first time ever, can now be included as part of 'climate change'. In the next few week, they'll all spout
off about the planet getting hotter, all the time. But no mention of snow falling in the deserts... for some reason.

The absolute fact that they have been entirely and totally wrong should be enough proof...talk about bias that is fully confirmable. These scientists
on the subject of climate are a disgrace.

Cut to the chase and stop making stuff up. You really dont know what you are talking about. Go and get some facts and come back to me. Answer this
how many papers are there on climate change. What percentage do you think are wrong.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.